The Cognitive Science Explanation For Why Copyright Doesn't Make Much Sense

from the we're-copying-machines-too dept

Michael Scott points us to a paper by law professor Stephen McJohn, in which he compares what cognitive scientists have learned about the role of mirror neurons to copyright, and concluded that we may want to rethink copyright law altogether. While the paper does make some interesting points, I will admit that it's a bit thin at certain points -- especially connecting the two concepts. I'd be much more interested in a more fully fleshed out discussion. However, the paper does point out that we appear to learn and communicate by copying what we see and hear. In some regards humans are copying machines. And this presents problems for a copyright world in which copying is seen as a bad thing.

The existing policy is that ideas should be spread freely, but there is little harm in prohibiting copying of one particular expression of an idea. Other parties are free to copy the idea from the work, simply by expressing it in a different way -- and any idea may be expressed in many ways. But this may rely on a false premise. If people learn and communicate in the bottom-up fashion suggested by mirror neurons, it may not be so easy to separate an idea from the expression of the idea. In a similar vein, taking a specific issue, the question whether sampling is fair use could look different if more weight were given to literal copying. Courts have held that sampling -- using short, literal copies of song snippets in new recordings -- is not fair use. Use of such "verbatim copying" weighs heavily against fair use, as opposed to copying that transforms the first work by adding creative elements. But such verbatim copying may be much more worthwhile, if mere copying has the importance that Ramachandran suggests [in the research about mirror neurons]. So, for example, there would be another argument for legal protection for personal, noncommercial uses, as important as they may be for learning, cultural transmission, and self-expression

As I said, some of the connections between the two fields comes across as a bit weak in the short paper, and it would be a lot more interesting to see these ideas further fleshed out to see if there really is a connection to be made here. However, it does suggest some interesting areas of research.

Reader Comments

I was thinking about the Amen break at it downed on me that the financial repercussions of that single instance of global piracy spawned an entire subculture that was more valuable in financial terms than any rights the original creator could have dreamed or gained.

So in a sense copyrights could be holding back the next explosion in spending just because they think they need to protect their pals and not the market.

About neurology well, you don't need to be a researchers to know that we copy each other to learn things, we all know it instinctively that is why we keep repeating words to newborns so they can copy them and start to talk, then when they grow up a bit and become teenagers parents always regret it that their sons and daughters know how to speak back.

Every time we engage with culture, we change it. Copying is an act of creation—recreation is creation because it arouses the spirit of the original in a new time, giving it new meaning. The work of the House of Wisdom continues today, every day, and the process of transmission, transliteration, transmutation and retransmission that once took five hundred years now happens in the blink of an eye.

Re:

"Copying is an act of creation"

There's a difference between copying and adapting. "Romeo & Juliet" is an original work. "West Side Story" is another original work on exactly the same theme, an adaptation. How about translations? Are they a creation as well?

Defending copying at that level is completely unsustainable, as it opens removes the impulse to create anything that takes more than five minutes of your time. Who would spend years researching a biography if someone could translate the whole work without crediting the author?

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Crediting without some form of monetisation is a pretty shallow compliment.

I suggest you spend 3 years writing a screenplay or biography and see how that alters your perception of the copyright debate.

Experiences can claw away at your rationality - the effect may not be good - read this quote from Metropolitan Anthony:

On the other hand, the moment we cling to anything we become slaves of it. I remember when I was young, a man telling me: Don't you understand that the moment you have taken a copper coin in your hand and are not prepared to open your hand to let it go, you have lost the use of a hand, the use of an arm, the use of your body, because all your attention will be concentrated on not losing this copper coin, - the rest will be forgotten.

Whether we keep in our hand a copper coin, or whether we feel rich in so many other ways - intellectually, emotionally, materially is irrelevant, - we are prisoners, we have lost the use of a limb, the use of our mind, the use of our heart; we can no longer be free,

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Devil's Advocate

we can spend a million years arguing about whether we're copying ideas or expressions. it depends entirely upon how you define ideas and expressions, and this battle will wage for all eternity. guess who the mercenaries are in this battle, and guess how much they make per hour?

If humans can copy-paste without a computer, sure - no one really minds. But once computers do the work for you, then we're talking about something else.

I'm a low earner and I need copyright to protect my original meager efforts from being ripped off. Otherwise I'd just get a supermarket job, far far less original professional quality intellectual works would be created - beyond a very very few generous people and a few elite creators.

As a file leeching maniac, sure I understand the desire to drop copyright so I can freely obtain everything. Is that what we're talking about here?

Re: Re: Re:

Re:

I'm a low earner and I need copyright to protect my original meager efforts from being ripped off. Otherwise I'd just get a supermarket job, far far less original professional quality intellectual works would be created - beyond a very very few generous people and a few elite creators.

That's a pretty hefty self-image you've built for yourself. Lord knows that a high-quality intellectual with a fountain of elite creations should NEVER have to stoop to a day job. Here's a quote for you:

"Wise assessment of copyright policy should have nothing to do with how you feel about the person or entity who holds the right at any particular time, because copyright policy is not about identifying wonderful and meritorious people and ensuring--certainly not as an end in itself, anyway--that their income is proportioned to their intrinsic moral desert--or lack thereof. We are all the massive beneficiaries of millennia of accumulated human scientific knowledge and cultural output, and not one of us did anything do deserve a jot of it. We're all just extremely lucky not to have been born cavemen. The greatest creative genius alive would be hard pressed to create a smiley faced smeared in dung on a tree trunk without that huge and completely undeserved inheritance. So banish the word "deserve" from your mind when you think about copyright."

Re:

"far far less original professional quality intellectual works would be created"

FUD. This is a risk I'm perfectly willing to take. Plenty of works were created before these protection laws existed, plenty of works get created under licenses designed to, at least in part, circumvent these protection laws, and plenty of works will continue to be created without these laws. Even if these laws result in more content, I don't want a government to subsidize you with a bad law just to artificially create an incentive to create content. You can find another job and contribute to the economy elsewhere. No one is forcing you to create and release content, if you feel ripped off, simply don't create and release content.

Copy'right' forces me to waste my time going through the effort required to determine what's infringing and what's not and what am I allowed and not allowed to do with every piece of content that comes my way. I can download a song on a CC only site, use that song for an event open to the public, and it could end up being infringement because it's really not released under a CC license. For all I know, the copy'right' holder could have uploaded the content himself just so that he can sue anyone who mistook it for CC licensed content. I have go through the effort and waste my time ensuring that every bite of content that passes my way isn't infringement before I do anything with it or else I can be in violation. Copy'right' is opt out, meaning in many situations I practically have to hire a psychic to tell me. You are not entitled to a monopoly and I do not want to subsidize your business model with my time just so that I can enjoy permissibly licensed content without infringing.

Even if far less content does get created as a result of IP abolition, so be it. My right to copy what I please, how I please, without worrying about what's infringement and what's not (and without wasting time trying to figure this stuff out), is more important to me than the value of any content that is lost as a result of copy'right' abolition. Those who were subsidized with IP laws would find other jobs and other ways to contribute to the economy in ways that better benefit us all and are less harmful to us.

Re: Re:

(and if it's not a risk you're willing to take, then you can voluntarily subsidize whatever content you like with your own money or with your own effort. No one is forcing you to copy without paying whoever you want whatever you want. but don't force me to subsidize your content by complying with such oppressive laws).

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Leech, parasite, etc."

The only leeches and parasites are those who wrongfully feel entitled to a monopoly when they are entitled to no such thing. They leech off of the tax dollars of others to enforce their monopolies and they leech off of the efforts of others to enforce their monopolies by requiring others to go through the effort of ensuring they do not infringe.

The only leeches are the collection societies who create nothing and leech off of the hard work of artists and scam the public while often not even paying artists what they owe.

The only leeches are those who wrongfully have govt imposed monopolies over public airwaves and cableco infrastructure and they use that monopoly power to keep out independents and permissibly licensed content, preventing such potential content creators from achieving the audience necessary to create and freely offer high quality content (since content often needs consumption to be produced, especially high quality content).

The only leeches are the collection societies who demand money from restaurants and other venues who want to host performers under the pretext that someone 'might' infringe, making it more difficult for independents to gain recognition.

"Natural law shows members of a society can't withdraw more than they contribute ad infinitum."

What? If this is true, then why does copy'right' even need to exist?

"Ignore that protections have been built against such dangers all you want, but you'll never change anything."

If natural law provides such protections, then why does copy'right' need to exist to provide any protection?

and if people simply ignore the wrongful protections that our legal system creates, then there is no need to change anything since the laws are simply being ignored and are hence unenforced (and these laws are unenforceable, if I wanted to ignore them, I'll ignore them, but I pay attention to them not in fear of getting caught). But I'm not ignoring these wrongful protections, I'm seeking to remove them and I plan to continue to seek their removal either until they are removed or as long as I live.

These monopolies exist for the same reason that taxi cab monopolies exist, for the same reason that patents on government funded research exists, for the same reason that copy'right' lasts 95+ years, for the same reason that the punishment for copy'right' infringement is far greater than the punishment for claiming 'rights' over something that's in the public domain, for the same reason that nothing really makes it in the public domain anymore, for the same reason that (both the building of new and the use of existing) cableco and broadcasting monopolies exist. None of it has anything to do with serving the public good whatosever, they exist because the government grants a monopoly on everything it can in return for campaign contributions and they exist only because the government is corrupt to its very core. I want these atrocious monopolies gone and I will seek their demise.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

These monopolies exist for the same reason that ACTA was negotiated in secret, even though industry representatives were invited to those negotiations.

I wouldn't mind so much if these laws were really about serving the public good and helping content creators (and if copy'right' lasted some reasonable period of time and if the punishment for infringement weren't so huge and if copy'right' were opt in and provided a reliable and reasonably easy way for people to know what is and what isn't infringement ahead of time without having to hire a psychic, maybe a central database to look things up from, and if the USPTO didn't grant so many ridiculous patents, and if tech related patents didn't last so long, and if pharma didn't ban or limit the amount of a naturally occurring substance in plants and other medicine for the sake of preventing it from competing with pharmaceutical drugs, especially patented ones, and if big corporations like Monsanto weren't allowed to sue farmers because one of their neighbors farms blew some patented pollen over to their farm and it grew), but they're not. They exist for one sole reason and one reason alone, to serve big business, and I'm not OK with that and I will resist.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Society made copyright as a protection

Hmmm to my memory all the "enhancements" of copyright law since it was invented have been at the behest of either artists with a vested interest (sonny bono) or corporations with a vested interest(disney). Clearly we are using a new and interesting definition of the word "society" that I wasn't previously aware of. Copyright law seems to have largely formed by roughly the equivalent of asking only prius drivers and residents of Pensecola beach to write a law as to what should happen to companies who's quality control is less than 100% effective.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Who said anything about enhancements?

You did. You are talking about copyright "protections" in their current form. Current copyright law resembles in very few ways the original law due to the "enhancements" on behalf of those with a very specific vested interest in the outcome therefore the enhancements and their source are relevant to the discussion especially as it relates to your claim of "society's will".

And what do you care about the length of copyright?

I care about it in as much as I'd like to see the laws resemble something actually achieves its alleged purpose and actually be about society rather than being a protectionist money grab for very few. As a creator of content, my own work is theoretically protected by copyright just as much as a song. Know how much actual "protection" or "benefit" I get from copyright? None. Know how much I care if my work is copied by others? Not even slightly - anyone who can copies it needs to understand it to make use of it and if they do they're at least as smart as me so good luck to them.

99% of the stuff you guys rip off is less than a couple years old.

I'm just the one person thank you and consider 90% of the stuff from the last decade to be trash, not that that is any more relevant to the source of copyright laws than your own non-sequitur.

Your pathetic rebuttal is transparent.

Your ad hominem ranting at my observation on your use of language as it relates to the source of copyright laws is.... well let us just say it's a good thing my monitor has really good contrast.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

who cares? then don't use it.

Ah.. so it doesn't matter if my copyright protections don't work just so long as a corporation that did not create anything but happens to own the copyright for a song written 50 years ago gets to get paid for it ad-infinitum with no further work and no further creation? Nice to know you think the law should be so even-handed. I therefore guess that you are either in the latter category or neuronic-ally challenged.

That doesn't mean you get to infringe the rights of an individual who does.

To quote Samuel L. Jackson:"[E]very time you make an assumption, you make an ass out of you...and umption."
Ad hominem attacks (that's ranting about personal stuff that's totally beside the point) really don't work very well when you know nothing whatsoever about the person you're attempting to attack.

That just makes you a selfish douchebag.

[sarcasm]Well bravo sir, your rapier-like wit and succinct arguments so tightly on-point completely convince me that copyright is everything to do with society and not at all about greedy corporations buying the result to the detriment of most people. After all, being such a clear example of a polite, upstanding- nay,(dare I say it?) OUTstanding - member of society yourself, you would clearly be in the best position to know.[/sarcasm]

Re: Re: Re: Re:

true for goods in limited supply. this is the whole finite vs infinite goods thing coming back and shooting holes in your argument again though. provided someone, ANYONE, is putting even one instance of a distinct infinite good into circulation, for any reason (and when it comes to software, the standard reason would probably be 'the previously available good did not do what i needed at the time'), the simple fact that it is an Infinite good means that as many people as want may take it, and the supply will not deplete. the rate of increase may reduce, but that's it.

finite goods such as food, minierals, and so on are, of course, a different story, because they are a zero sum game.

fun fact: wealth is not an inherantly zero sum game either. (unless you count only the currency units its measured in, and even that's guaranteed only if the currency in question is on an actual meaningful standard.)

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Quote:

Ignore that protections have been built against such dangers all you want, but you'll never change anything.

Change what? the absurd protections that protect nothing?

I'm copying a DVD right now, can you stop me?, do you know who I'm? can you track me down? or the only thing you can do is say "oh please Mr. Pirate make it stop", is that all you can do to protect your very real property, and very real rights?

LoL

You want to get into a piss contest fine, you need the public to enforce those laws, without public support you have nothing.

When nobody respect your rights that those not give you just a little hint that something is wrong?

Who I'm kidding, of course you can't see the problem, you are just to dumb to understand anything LoL

Re:

Are you sure far less original content would be produce and not induced by copying more freely?

Did the Amen-Break not produced and entire new genre populated entirely by original content?

Creating new opportunities and a market far beyond anything one single person could have managed to achieve or gain individually, are you against a better market even if you individually don't make that much off of it? why?

The existing policy is that ideas should be spread freely, but there is little harm in prohibiting copying of one particular expression of an idea. Other parties are free to copy the idea from the work, simply by expressing it in a different way -- and any idea may be expressed in many ways. But this may rely on a false premise. If people learn and communicate in the bottom-up fashion suggested by mirror neurons, it may not be so easy to separate an idea from the expression of the idea. In a similar vein, taking a specific issue, the question whether sampling is fair use could look different if more weight were given to literal copying. Courts have held that sampling -- using short, literal copies of song snippets in new recordings -- is not fair use. Use of such "verbatim copying" weighs heavily against fair use, as opposed to copying that transforms the first work by adding creative elements. But such verbatim copying may be much more worthwhile, if mere copying has the importance that Ramachandran suggests [in the research about mirror neurons]. So, for example, there would be another argument for legal protection for personal, noncommercial uses, as important as they may be for learning, cultural transmission, and self-expression.

Our culture is built on freely copying each other

From musicians and storytellers wandering from town to town, memorizing and repeating each other's material with no contracts and no royalties, to Walt Disney building his empire on the money he made using public domain fairy tales and classical music in his early animations.

It doesn't take a genius to recognize that humans developed a rich culture without copyrights. It also doesn't take a genius to see that the protection of artists and creativity is a smoke screen for the real thrust behind modern IP mania, which is to preserve the market that has developed for buying and selling control of other people's creativity. It doesn't take a genius, but it does require taking one's head out of one's ass.

I guess the part of this whole argument is that copyright does exist (despite rediculous historical facts which are not related to currenty technological and societal change in ANY way), therefore society wants it, therefore you're all wrong about society being against copyright (despite strawman arguments based on actions).

Therefore - copyright is here to stay forever until the MAJORITY of society changes it mind, which it never ever will be able to do in the face of COMMERCIAL MASS MEDIA which WANTS COPYRIGHT and has billions to spend on the campaign.

Re:

Well, if all people want copyrights why do you complain about pirates, if the majority of people like it and respect it, surely there is no such a thing as piracy since it would go against social mores and so forth right?

Now about the millions spent on lobbying in congress, tell us please how much good that actually did to the industry?

Did it improve things or are they in panic mode still?
Surely all that money have paid for solutions that work already right?